Review of the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements ... · Review of the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment Review prepared pursuant

Review of the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment

Review of the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment

Review prepared pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990 Province of Ontario by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

PIBS 8568e © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

For more information: call 416-325-4000 or toll free 1-800-565-4923 [email protected] www.Ontario.ca/Environment

www.Ontario.ca/Environment

mailto:[email protected]

Cette publication hautement spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais en vertu du règlement 441/97, qui en exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère de l’Environnement au 1-800-461-6290.

NEED MORE INFORMATION?

Public Record Locations The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

2 St.Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario

Voice: (416) 314-8001/1-800-461-6290 Fax: (416) 314-8452

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations: Ministry of the Environment Central Region Office 5775 Yonge St., 8th floor North York, Ontario M2M 4J1

York Region Administrative Centre 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1

City of Vaughan Municipal Office 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, Ontario L6A 1T1

Pierre Berton Resource Library 4921 Rutherford Road Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 1A6

Woodbridge Library 150 Woodbridge Avenue Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 2S7

Ansley Grove Library 350 Ansley Grove Road Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 5C9

Kleinburg Library 10341 Islington Avenue Kleinburg, Ontario L0J 1C0

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was October 21, 2011, as extended. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 1

1. Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................... 2 1.1 Terms of Reference..................................................................................... 2 1.2 Environmental Assessment......................................................................... 3 1.3 Ministry Review.......................................................................................... 3

2. The Proposed Undertaking .................................................................................. 4

3. Results of the Ministry Review ............................................................................ 9 3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA............................................................... 9

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis........................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Consultation................................................................................... 9 3.1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................... 13

3.2 EA Process ................................................................................................ 13 3.2.1 Key Issues.................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Conclusion ................................................................................... 15

3.3 Proposed Undertaking............................................................................... 16 3.3.1 Key Issues.................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Conclusion ................................................................................... 17

4. Summary of the Ministry Review...................................................................... 18

5. What Happens Now? .......................................................................................... 19 5.1 Additional Approvals Required ................................................................ 19 5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking ................................ 20

List of Appendices

Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period List of Tables

Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table List of Figures Figure 1 Preferred Alternative/Undertaking Figure 2 Study Area

Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment Review

Executive Summary

WHO The Regional Municipality of York (Region of York)

WHAT Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes: Road and transit improvements to Highway 27, Major

Mackenzie Drive, Rutherford Road, Pine Valley Drive and Weston Road in the western part of the City of Vaughan.

WHEN EA Submitted: July 15, 2011; Amended September 30, 2011

EA Submission Comment Period: July 15 to September 2, 2011Ministry Review Comment Period: November 4 to December 9, 2011

WHERE The study area represents almost the entire western half of the City of Vaughan, generally between Highway 50 and Highway 400, generally north of Highway 407 and south of Teston Road.

WHY The purpose of the undertaking is to address transportation deficiencies to satisfy east-west and north-south travel demands. Also the undertaking will improve transportation mobility and facilitate more convenient and reliable transportation choices.

CONCLUSIONS The Ministry of the Environment’s Review of the EA concluded that the proponent has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The ministry is satisfied that the Region of York used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was selected from the alternatives considered. Proposed standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking.

October 2011 1


October 2011 2

1. Environmental Assessment Process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent led planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the potential effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of Reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE/ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On July 16, 2004 the Minister elevated this proposal from a Class EA project to an individual EA through a Part II Order.

On February 13, 2006, the Minister approved the ToR with amendments. These amendments precluded the inclusion of road improvements for Pine Valley Drive through the Boyd Conservation Area and instead directed the study in the EA on north-south and

EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ MMiinniissttrryy RReevviieeww

↓ Review Comment Period

↓ Minister’s Decision


east-west transportation improvements in the western area of the City of Vaughan. The approved ToR sets out how the Region of York would assess alternatives to address transportation deficiencies in the western Vaughan study area; assess potential environmental effects; and, consult with the public and government agencies during the preparation of the EA.

The alternatives to be considered in the EA included individual alternatives and a combination of alternatives including: Do Nothing; planned road and transit improvements, other than those on Pine Valley Drive as noted above; travel demand and system management measures; additional public transit initiatives; and other road improvements.

The ToR established the proponents’ framework or work plan that would be used during the planning and decision-making process that would be followed during the preparation of the EA. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental Assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has prepared the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and approval.

On July 15, 2011, the Region of York submitted the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment to the ministry for review and a decision for the proposed road and transit improvements in western Vaughan. The EA submission comment period ended on September 2, 2011.

1.3 Ministry Review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local government agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

October 2011 3


The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluated the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in The Toronto Star and the Vaughan Citizen indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from November 4 to December 9, 2011. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

2. The Proposed Undertaking

The Region of York is seeking approval under the EAA for various road and transit improvements in western Vaughan.

If EAA approval is granted, the proposed improvements to the road and transit systems in the western Vaughan area will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval. In addition, the Region of York must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

The preferred alternative consists of road and transit improvements in the study area including:

Widening of the Highway 27 from 2 to 4 lanes between north of Nashville Road and Major Mackenzie Drive;

Elimination of the jog in the roadway at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27;

October 2011 4


Widenings to 6 lanes to accommodate additional road capacity for vehicles, dedicated transit lanes/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and bike lanes for:

Major Mackenzie Drive between Highway 50 and 400; Rutherford Road between Highway 50 and Weston Road; Highway 27 between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue; Pine Valley Drive between Highway 7 and Steeles Avenue; and, Weston Road between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue.

All the above noted roadways to be widened to 6 lanes are currently 4 lanes with the exception of Major Mackenzie Drive which is currently 2 lanes. Purpose of Undertaking The purpose of the undertaking is to address transportation deficiencies to satisfy east-west and north-south travel demands. Also the undertaking will improve transportation mobility and facilitate more convenient and reliable transportation choices within the western Vaughan area as new growth occurs over the next 25 years. In anticipation of future population and employment growth, the Region of York recognizes the need to manage congestion more efficiently and sustainably, ensuring that its transportation system can accommodate new growth. Implementation The preferred undertaking will be built in phases. The phased implementation is based on projected traffic needs and would be subject to change depending on future traffic conditions and the availability of funding through the Region of York’s 10 year capital plan. The following timeline for improvements are proposed: Major Mackenzie Road in the short term (+10 year); Weston Road; Pine Valley; and Rutherford Road west of Highway 27 in the

medium term (+20 years); and, Highway 27 and Rutherford Road east of Highway 27 in the long term (30

years). Monitoring The EA includes both environmental effects monitoring and compliance monitoring. The EA lists the commitments for the detailed design, construction and operation which will be included as part of the compliance monitoring in the proposed annual reports. The EA also includes an environmental effects monitoring strategy and schedule. Environmental effects monitoring will ensure that predicted net effects are not exceeded; unexpected environmental effects are addressed; and, predicted benefits are realized. Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) will also be prepared where required to support permit and

October 2011 5


approval applications. EMPs will detail the environmental commitments, monitoring requirements and approval conditions associated with construction and operation. Given the long implementation period associated with the preferred undertaking, the EA also includes an updating provision after 10 years to ensure that the environmental conditions, proposed mitigation, and the purpose of the transportation improvements are still valid. Existing Environment Context There is a variety of different land uses within the study area. The central portion of the study area is composed of predominately naturalized areas and community areas including the communities of Woodbridge and Kleinburg. The central portion also consists of the Humber River and East Humber River valleys as well as the Boyd Conservation Area (842 hectares (ha)) and the Korthright Centre for Conservation (325 ha). Between Highway 50 and Highway 27 in the western part of the study area the lands consist of predominately vacant fields that are intended to be redeveloped in the future as employment lands. Along Highway 50 there are mainly fields and farms with a small residential community, shopping plaza, golf course and a large industrial use. Lands in the southern part of the study area in and around Highway 7 east of Highway 27 are occupied by big box retail plazas, parking lots, industrial uses and a mixture of other uses. The Pine Valley Drive corridor south of Highway 7 to Steeles Avenue consists of industrial uses to the east and residential uses to the west. To the east between Weston Road and Highway 400, south of Rutherford Road lands are for existing and proposed employment lands. Lands west of Weston Road largely consist of residential communities uses including lands along Weston Road between Major Mackenzie and Rutherford Road. Highway 27, Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road cross the Humber River, the East Humber River and tributaries of these rivers. Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road also cross the large naturalized areas associated with the Korthright Conservation Area and the Boyd Conservation Area respectively. The Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road corridors are also adjacent to suburban residential, farm and industrial uses.

October 2011 6


Figure 1: Proposed Undertaking

October 2011 7


Figure 2: Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Study Area

October 2011 8


The purpose of the Ministry Review is to determine whether:

The EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.

There are any outstanding issues with the EA.

The proposed undertaking has technical merit.

3. Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision-making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA Must Haves in the EA:

The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.

EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements.

EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process.

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry is satisfied that the EA followed the framework as set out in the ToR, addressed the commitments made in the ToR and that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation completed for the EA was appropriate for this undertaking and was consistent with the approved ToR. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods used to engage all interested persons in the EA process. The Executive Summary, Chapter 7 and Appendix 7 in the EA describe the consultation activities and the issues that were raised.

Section 5.1 of the EAA states:

“When preparing proposed terms of reference and an

environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested.”

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry led consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The Government Review Team (GRT), the public and

October 2011 9


potentially affected Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the Region of York for a response. Summaries of all of the comments received along with the Region of York’s responses are included in Tables 1-2. Copies of the GRT submissions are also available in Appendix B. Government Review Team

During the preparation of the EA, the proponents consulted with the following government and other agencies: the Ministries of Environment (MOE); Transportation (MTO); Aboriginal Affairs; Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMFRA); Tourism and Culture (MTC); Infrastructure; Municipal Affairs and Housing; and Natural Resources (MNR); Ontario Heritage Trust; Infrastructure Ontario (formerly Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC)); Conservation Ontario; the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); York Catholic District School Board; York Region District School Board; Ontario Provincial Police; Region of York staff; the City of Vaughan; the Region of Peel; Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Department of Indian and Northern Affairs); Environment Canada; Transport Canada; CP Rail and CN Rail.

Throughout the EA process, meetings and discussions were held with representatives of the Ministry of Environment, other government agencies and the project team. Review agencies were also invited to participate at Review Agency Advisory Committee meetings. At key milestones, the Region of York provided status updates and updated project information for review. Agencies were also invited to comment on draft EA report between January 12, 2011 and February 18, 2011.

Comments from government agencies on the submission of the EA included comments from the MOE; MTC; MTO; OMAFRA; and the Ministry of Infrastructure – Ontario Growth Secretariat. Comments were also received from the City of Brampton; the Region of Peel and the TRCA. In general government agencies did not have significant concerns with the project. Information and clarifications were requested about references to the Growth Plan; permits required prior to construction by TRCA; transportation design details including cross sections related to the approved Highway 427 Extension EA; intersection designs with Highway 50 and transportation connectivity issues and safety issues for cyclists. MOE technical reviewers are seeking additional commitments and information about air quality assessment work and storm water management information for the EA and during the detailed design. The MTC also made specific recommendations requiring approvals

October 2011 10


by MTC for archaeological reports as well as additional heritage reports required prior to the detailed design phase. Public Consultation

The proponents used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public which included:

Creation of a project specific web site to provide information about the project A project newsletter; Neighbourhood meetings; Meetings with property owners; Meetings with government agencies; Advertisements in Vaughan Citizen and the Toronto Star of public meetings; Direct mailings to stakeholders within the study area; Six Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings comprised of local

residents, business owners, property owners, and environmental and transportation organizations;

Five rounds of Public Consultation Centres which consisted of eleven meetings with the public and interested stakeholders.

During the pre-submission of the EA, comments were raised by the public about a variety of issues including: traffic congestion in the study area; the need for road improvements on major routes in the study area; the need to improve public transit and pedestrian access; increase of traffic and noise; pedestrian and cyclist safety; preservation and conservation of natural conservation areas and existing trails; and, improving future land use planning initiatives. Three public comments were received during the EA submission comment period including a member of the public, U-Pak Disposals Limited and the Rimwood Estates Homeowners Association. Concerns raised include pedestrian safety on a sidewalk on Highway 27 raised by a resident; potential environmental effects and the assessment of alternatives associated with the eliminating the jog at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27 by U-Pak Disposals Limited (refer also to Section 3.2.1 of this Review); and, a request by the Rimwood Estates Homeowners Association to include homes near Teston and Weston Roads as part of the proponent’s proposed groundwater well monitoring program. A summary of these comments, the proponent’s response to these comments and the ministry’s satisfaction with this response is included is included in Table 2 of Appendix B of this Review.

October 2011 11


Aboriginal Community Consultation In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that potentially affected Aboriginal communities be consulted during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

The Region of York contacted potentially affected First Nations communities, inviting them to participate in the process based on information provided from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada during the preparation of the EA. The proponent contacted and met with various Fist Nations including: Alderville Fist Nation; Beausoleil Fist Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island; Chippewas of Mnjikaning; Curve Lake First Nation; Hiawatha First Nation; Iroquois Confederacy; Mississaugas of Scugog Island; Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte; Moose Deer Point First Nation; Nation Huronne Wendat; and the Six Nations of the Grand River.

Aboriginal rights stem from practices, customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal community claiming the right. Treaty rights stem from the signing of treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the Crown. Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Two Aboriginal communities commented on the draft EA report. This included the Alderville First Nation and the Curve Lake First Nation. Both First Nations indicated that they were not concerned about the project but indicated an interest in being contacted about any future Aboriginal archaeological findings or burial sites.

During the EA submission comment period the Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and the Chippewas of Rama commented on the EA. The Curve Lake First Nation and the Alderville First Nation indicated that they had no concerns but they wished to kept informed of any future archaeological findings, burial sites, or other environmental impacts. The Chippewas of Rama First Nation indicated that they had forwarded the EA information to the Williams Treaty First Nation coordinator for review and comment. No further First Nation comments were received by the ministry on the EA.

Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program Overall, the ministry believes that the Region of York provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Feedback from the public and agencies affected decision making and mitigation proposed. The proponents provided various opportunities for input at key milestones in the EA process. Public and agency consultation will continue as part of project implementation. The proponent’s consultation program was consistent with its approved ToR.

October 2011 12


3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the EA is consistent with the approved ToR and is satisfied that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.

3.2 EA Process

The EA was prepared according to the approved ToR which included in general identifying the problem or opportunity, considering alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluating the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative or undertaking.

The proponents followed a logical and transparent decision-making process as outlined in the EA. Refer to section 4 of this Review for the ministry’s analysis.

In general, the process for evaluation included:

Identifying the problems and opportunities and alternatives which could address this.

Identifying and refining the study area which described the existing environment potentially affected for lands within the western portion of the City of Vaughan. The study area includes lands which are generally described as being west of Highway 400, east of Highway 50, north of Highway 407, and south of Teston Road.

Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the ‘alternatives to’ the undertaking to improve transportation mobility in the western Vaughan area and to address population and employment growth in the year 2031. The ‘alternatives to’ included:

Do Nothing Travel Demand Management (TDM) Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (road and transit improvements) TMP and additional transit improvements TMP and additional road improvements Transit only from TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit improvements TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit improvements All improvements (TMP, TDM, TSM, additional transit and road

improvements)

October 2011 13


Screening a list of ‘alternatives to’ the undertaking to a short list of alternatives considered reasonable for comparative evaluation as described in the approved ToR. The screening process determined which alternatives were capable of improving transportation mobility as described in Chapter 2 (Purpose of/Rationale for the Undertaking).

Selecting the preferred ‘alternative to’ which consisted of TMP, TDM, TSM as well as additional transit improvements beyond the TMP.

Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the ‘alternative methods’. In additional to TDM and TSM, this included considering various road and transit improvements on Highway 50, Highway 27, Major Mackenzie Drive, Rutherford Road, Weston Road, and Pine Valley Drive. This also included carrying forward the “Do Nothing” option as a base case comparison.

Describing the natural, socio-economic, and cultural environments potentially affected in the study area for each alternative using an assessment of environmental criteria and indicators which were developed with input from the public and government agencies.

Undertaking a comparative analysis of each alternative including identifying net effects and evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of one alternative against another.

Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred alternative including a detailed description of the preferred alternative/undertaking; assessment of the potential environmental effects; proposed mitigation and net effects associated with the preferred alternative/undertaking.

Environmental Effects

The majority of potential environmental effects associated with the preferred undertaking include: impacts from construction which can be mitigated including erosion and sediment control measures; timing of construction activities; developing and implementing a spill response plan; undertaking wetland restoration on or off-site using native wetland species; implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for dust suppression and noise vibration reduction; isolating in-stream work areas from the primary channel to allow for fish passage and other mitigation measures.

Other potential impacts may include: effects on cultural heritage resources; fish habitat; wetland habitats and functions; groundwater quantity and water supply; surface water

October 2011 14


quality and quantity; and economic effects including property impacts. Potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed undertaking are described in Chapter 5 of the EA.

3.2.1 Key Issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region of York for the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. While the GRT and Aboriginal communities did not provide any comments to the ministry indicating any concerns with the EA process, a public submission from U-Pak Disposals Limited raised concerns about the evaluation of alternatives associated with the alignment for the elimination of the jog at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27. It is understood that the road realignment will bisect the U-Pak Disposals Limited property and that U-Pak Disposals Limited met with the Region of York several times, had input into identifying other alternatives alignments and provided the proponent with conceptual development plans for the future residential redevelopment of the U-Pak Disposals Limited property. It is also understood that U-Pak Disposals Limited favours alignment MM-2A as opposed to the preferred alternative MM-2B. The ministry has no concerns with the Region of York’s evaluation and notes that all environmental factors must be taken into consideration including approved developments to the north; the potential impacts to the natural environment associated with alternative MM-2A (least preferred); the safety of the proposed design (not optimal for MM-2A) and comments received by members of the GRT such as the City of Vaughan, TRCA, CP Rail and others. The preferred alternative does not preclude future residential uses on the U-Pak Disposals Limited property and there will be compensation provided for land required for the new road under the Expropriations Act. It is also noted that the proposed design makes an effort to avoid existing buildings on the site which will be further refined during the detailed design. A summary of U-Pak Disposals Limited’s submission including the Region of York’s

responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction with the proponent’s responses can be found in Table 2 of Appendix B.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process. The EA clearly articulates the process followed to assess potential environmental effects associated with the undertaking and the alternatives.

October 2011 15


3.3 Proposed Undertaking

3.3.1 Key Issues

Key issues regarding the proposed undertaking were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A number of issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities. A summary of all comments received, including York Regions’ responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B of this Review. Some of the key issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. The EA was amended and resubmitted to the ministry on September 30, 2011. The amended EA clarified and corrected references to the Growth Plan; provided commitments to work with the Region of Peel to coordinate the design of the intersections of Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road to the west of Highway 427 (including the intersections with Highway 50); corrected design inconsistencies with cross sections for the interchange area associated with the approved Highway 427 Extension EA as requested by MTO; and, addressed the natural and cultural heritage comments raised by MOE and MTC, respectively. The MTC is recommending submission, review and sign off by MTC for any archaeological reports prior to the detailed design. Also cultural heritage evaluations and heritage impact assessments are recommended to be completed and reviewed by MTC prior to the completion of the detailed design for built heritage resources for the purpose of avoiding, limiting and mitigating heritage resources. They also recommend that the proponent contact the Registrar of Cemeteries to provide advice regarding any potential impacts to cemeteries and the ossuary potential zone. The proponent has agreed to the requirements of the MTC and has revised and clarified these requirements as well as additional mitigation measures in the amended EA. MOE technical reviewers requested that additional air quality modelling work be done for the proposed undertaking as well as additional commitments with respect to stormwater management including Enhanced Level 1 Treatment and other specific design requirements. The proponent has revised the EA to address these issues and has included additional commitments for this work to be completed during the detailed design. MOE technical reviewers wish to ensure appropriate ministry involvement in the preparation of the proponent’s stormwater management strategy for Enhanced Level I Treatment water protection measures during the detailed design. If the undertaking is approved, a proposed condition of approval is recommended to require that the strategy be prepared in consultation with the MOE during the detailed design phase and that the strategy shall be reviewed by the MOE’s Central Region office. U-Pak Disposals Limited also indicated concerns about impacts from noise if a nearby CP Rail overpass is proposed and requested noise barriers for future residential

October 2011 16


development for U-Pak Disposal’s lands. The Region of York has advised that its policy is to provide noise mitigation for existing residential uses where required (with increases in excess of 5 decibel (dB). Future residential developments must provide noise mitigation as part the subsequent approval process associated with the residential plan of subdivision. It is understood that in the EA the expected noise level from increased road traffic will not exceed 5dB for the existing residential use. In general, the ministry is satisfied with the noise assessment completed and the proposed mitigation for noise.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process and the proposed undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that the commitments made by the Region of York will ensure that any potential environmental effects can be mitigated and managed. The ministry is also satisfied that appropriate interested parties will continue to be consulted through out the implementation of the undertaking.

October 2011 17


4. Summary of the Ministry Review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Western Vaughan transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment.

This Review concludes that:

The ministry is satisfied that the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponents have provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, members of the public and other stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to provide input into the EA. The results of the consultations have also been clearly documented in the consultation record provided in the EA.

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s responses to the GRT and public submissions.

The proponents used a clear and logical decision-making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was chosen in accordance with the approved ToR.

The ministry has enough information about the potential environmental effects to enable a decision to be made about the proposed undertaking.

If the undertaking as described in the EA is approved, a proposed condition is recommended which will require the stormwater strategy to be prepared in consultation with the ministry and subject to review by the ministry to ensure that the proponent’s stormwater management strategy prepared during the detailed design will provide enhanced water quality protection measures and mitigation to manage stormwater runoff.

Standard conditions of approval are also recommended for the implementation of the undertaking including: general requirements to comply with the EA and any commitments provided; obtain other approvals and permits under other statutes; documentation requirements for the public record; compliance monitoring provisions for the proponents to conduct and report on compliance; clarification regarding the documentation and consultation requirements for amendments to the detailed design of the undertaking; and, the preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during all phases of the undertaking.

October 2011 18


October 2011 19

5. What Happens Now?

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

Give approval to proceed with the undertaking;

Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or

Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional Approvals Required

If EAA approval is granted, the Region of York will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 8 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

If EAA approval is granted, the

proponent must still obtain any other

permits or approvals required to construct

and operate this undertaking.

Next Step in the EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ Ministry Review

↓ RReevviieeww

CCoommmmeenntt PPeerriioodd

↓ Minister’s Decision


City of Vaughan (e.g. tree by-laws, noise by-laws, property agreements, discharge to sewer permits and fill and topsoil disturbance by-law);

Utility authorities’ approvals;

MOE (e.g. Ontario Water Resources Act – Permits to Take Water);

MTC (e.g. Letter of Concurrence for Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment);

ORC (e.g. permanent or temporary easement agreements on hydro lands under Ministry of Infrastructure Class EA);

TRCA (e.g. permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses);

Ontario Heritage Trust (e.g. Approvals for purchase or exchange of land);

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (e.g. Fisheries Act);

Canadian Transportation Agency (e.g. Canada Transportation Act, agreements regarding rail crossings); and,

Transport Canada (e.g. Permit under Navigable Waters Protection Act).

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

The proponent has submitted a project description to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to determine if a federal EA is required in accordance with the approved ToR. Federal triggers may include permits and authorizations from federal bodies, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada.

5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking

Given the long term build out of the undertaking, the Region of York EA recognizes that there could be changes to the detailed design of the undertaking. The EA includes an amending procedure to address this issue. The amending procedure includes a process both for minor and major amendments.

Minor amendments consist of amendments to the detailed design of the undertaking and involve the appropriate consultation with directly affected stakeholders as well as consultation and review by the ministry. This includes a 30-day public consultation period; documentation and mitigation of any potential effects and compensation when required. In the EA, the proponent is proposing that any changes which result in no new net effects would not have to follow the minor amendment process. A proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify that the ministry will be requiring documentation through an addendum for any changes and will work with the proponent to determine the appropriate consultation requirements for those design changes which will result in no new net effects.

Major amendments consist of significant changes to where and how the undertaking would be built. In these cases, the Region of York will conduct a new individual EA or

October 2011 20


October 2011 21

follow the provisions of the Municipal Engineers Association's Municipal Class EA for road or HOV lane transit improvements.

It should be noted that the ministry will determine the nature and extent of its review and the appropriate use of these amending procedures as well as the need for an addendum report associated with a design change.

Appendix A

Environmental Assessment Act Requirements

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and Terms of Reference (ToR) Requirements of the Environmental Assessment (EA)

EA Decision Making

Process EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity.

Problem/Opportunities

Purpose of the Undertaking: s.6.1(2)(a)

If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

The purpose and rationale for the undertaking is described in Chapter 2 of the EA. Appendix 2 describes the transportation problems. The purpose of the undertaking includes improving transportation mobility and facilitating more convenient transportation choices within the western Vaughan study area to accommodate growth which will occur over the next 25 years to the year 2031.

The ministry is satisfied that the purpose of the

undertaking is consistent with the amendments imposed by the Minister as part of the ToR approval.

Alternatives Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives to: Alternative to s.6.1(2)(b)(iii)

“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative to should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation.

Chapter 3 of the EA included a description and rationale for 9 “alternatives to” including:

1. Do Nothing 2. Travel Demand Management (TDM) 3. Transportation System Management (TSM) 4. Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (road and transit

improvements) 5. TMP and additional transit improvements 6. TMP and additional road improvements 7. Transit only from TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional

transit improvements 8. TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit

improvements 9. All improvements (TMP, TDM, TSM, additional

- 1 -

EA Decision Making Process

EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

transit and road improvements) The preferred “alternative to” selected was

Alternative 8-TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit improvements.

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives methods: Alternative Methods s.6.1(2)(b)(ii)

“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to” A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

Chapter 4 of the EA included a description, rationale and assessment of the alternative methods which included the following alternatives:

Widening of Highway 50 between Steeles Avenue and Highway 7 and between Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie;

No widening of Pine Valley Drive from 2 to 4 lanes between Rutherford Road and Teston Avenue;

Widening of Highway 27 to 4 lanes between north of Nashville Road and Major MacKenzie Drive;

Various alignments to eliminate the jog in the roadway at Major MacKenzie Drive and Highway 27;

Alignments for widenings to 6 lanes to accommodate additional road capacity for vehicles, dedicated transit lanes/High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, and bike lanes for: Major Mackenzie Drive between Highway 50

and 400 (2 to 6 lanes) (also considered 4 lane option); 3 alternative alignments considered for main Humber River crossings west of Highway 27;

Rutherford Road between Highway 50 and Weston Road which included 2 alternative alignments east of Islington Avenue and the

- 2 -



location of road alignment north of Rutherford near Huntington Road (also considered no Rutherford Road widening);

Highway 27 between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue;

Pine Valley Drive between Highway 7 and Steeles Avenue; and,

Weston Road between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue.

The decision-making process explains how the

Region of York evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed undertaking.

Evaluation Description of the Environment s.6.1(2)(c)(i)

Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

The study area is located in western part of the City of Vaughan generally bounded by Highway 400 to the east; Highway 407 to the south; Highway 50 to the west and Teston Road to the north.

A description of the natural, socio/economic,

cultural environment is included in Section 3.4, Appendices 2, 3B, 3C, 4C, 5A, 5B, 5C of the EA which establishes the baseline conditions for the study area and the potential effects associated with each alternative.

The EA included existing condition reports for the

natural, socio-economic, cultural environment; field investigation reports for aquatic, terrestrial, hydrology, archaeology, and built heritage features; preliminary geotechnical investigations, a meander belt and erosion analysis, a hydraulic assessment of the affected watercourses, a transportation

- 3 -



modelling report, etc. The description of the environment was consistent

with the broad definition of the environment required under the EAA.

Chapters 3 and 4 describe the environment

potentially affected by the proposed alternatives.

Description of Potential Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(ii)

Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the EA.

A description of the potential natural,

socio/economic, cultural environment effects are included in Chapters 3, 4 and 5; Sections 3.4, 3.5, 4.4; and Appendix 3, 4 and 5 of the EA which establishes the baseline conditions for the study area and the potential environmental effects to the environment.

In response to comments from government

agencies the proponent has amended the EA to provide additional commitments and clarifications with respect to: undertaking additional air quality modeling; completing cultural heritage assessments; refining the work to be completed during the detailed design for stormwater management and providing clarifications with respect to the various components of the transportation design.

Description of the Actions Necessary to Prevent, Change, Mitigate or Remedy the Environmental Effects

A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental

The potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the alternatives and the preferred undertaking have been considered throughout the

- 4 -



s.6.1(2)(c)(iii) effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

evaluation including net effects (Chapters 3, 4 and 5; and, Appendices 3E, 3F, 4D, and 5E of the EA).

Chapter 6 of the EA discusses the environmental

monitoring and compliance monitoring for the undertaking which will occur as part of the implementation of the undertaking.

A standard condition of approval is proposed to

include a compliance monitoring plan which will require annual reports for compliance with any commitments made in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval.

A condition of approval is recommended to require

consultation with ministry and review by the ministry of the proponent’s stormwater management strategy during the detailed design.

Evaluation of Advantages and Disadvantages to the Environment s.6.1(2)(d)

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Advantages and disadvantage to the environment are evaluated throughout the EA for the alternatives and the proposed undertaking (Chapter 3, 4 and 5 of the EA).

The proponent’s evaluation is reasonable and

provided a clear and traceable decision-making process.

Description of Consultation with Interested Stakeholders s.6.1(2)(e)

A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience,

Chapter 7 and Appendix 7 of the EA include a consultation record of the consultation undertaken with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities.

- 5 -



descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input, comments received. The EA must identify any Aboriginal consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations. The EA should include outline conflict resolution techniques to resolve issues used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

The methods of consultation included newspaper notices and direct mailing to stakeholders about commencement of project; Public Information Centres (PIC’s); a project web site; 6 rounds of PIC’s; meetings with a Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee, a Review Agency Advisory Committee, neighbourhood meetings, meetings with government agencies, Aboriginal communities and affected property owners.

The results of this consultation are described in the

EA and in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and Appendix B of this Review.

The proponent contacted the Williams Treaty First

Nations (FNs); the Mississaugas of New Credit FN; Six Nations of the Grand River FN; Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte FN; Huronnne Wendat; Metis Nation of Ontario and the Kawartha Nishawbi FN.

The proponent provided adequate opportunities

throughout the development of the EA for the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities to participate in the EA process.

The proponent provided opportunities for

stakeholders to comment during key project milestones as well as an opportunity to comment on the assessment criteria and methodology to be used in the EA.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation

undertaken was consistent with the consultation plan in the ToR.

- 6 -



Proposed Undertaking

Selection Process

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the undertaking s.6.1(2)(b)(i)

The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

The preferred alternative is described in Chapter 5 of the EA and consists of road and transit improvements in the study area including: Widening of Highway 27 to 4 lanes between

north of Nashville Road and Major MacKenzie Drive;

Elimination of the jog in the roadway at Major MacKenzie Drive and Highway 27;

Widenings to 6 lanes to accommodate additional road capacity for vehicles, dedicated transit lanes/High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, and bike lanes for: Major Mackenzie Drive between Highway 50

and 400; Rutherford Road between Highway 50 and

Weston Road Highway 27 between Major Mackenzie Drive

and Steeles Avenue; Pine Valley Drive between Highway 7 and

Steeles Avenue Weston Road between Major Mackenzie Drive

and Steeles Avenue

Phased implementation is based on projected traffic capacity needs and would be subject to change depending on future traffic conditions and the availability of funding through The Region of York’s 10 year capital plan. Improvements are proposed to Major Mackenzie Road in the short term (+10 years); Weston Road, Pine Valley and Rutherford Road west of Highway 27 in the medium term (+ 20 years) and Highway 27 and Rutherford Road east of highway 27 in the long

- 7 -



term (30 years). Standard conditions of approval are proposed for

compliance monitoring, complaints management during construction, amending procedures, public record documents, subsequent approvals, etc.

Additional ToR Commitments

Outline any further commitments made by the proponent in the ToR. EA required to address the transportation problems in western Vaughan not just north-south transportation problems. Environmental effects will be addressed not only on the significance of the effects but on the duration of effects in consultation with the TRCA and others. Any alternative to be located through the Boyd Conservation Area is to be excluded from consideration. In addition to the general public, the list of contacts shall also include municipal and provincial agencies, First Nations including the Mississaugas of New Credit, the Huron Wendat and interested stakeholders.

Chapter 1, Table 1-1 of the EA outlines where and how the EAA requirements, commitments in the ToR and Minister’s amendments on the approved ToR are addressed in the EA.

Chapter 2 of the EA outlines the purpose of EA to

study and address east-west and north-south transportation problems in the study area.

Environmental effects and the duration of effects

were considered in Section 3.5 and Chapter 5, Section 5.5 of the EA.

EA does not study or include any transportation

improvements for a new roadway or transportation corridors through the Boyd Conservation Area (e.g. Pine Valley Drive extension through the Boyd Conservation Area).

Chapter 7 and Appendix 7 documents a broad list

of agencies including First Nations which were consulted on the EA.

Next Steps and Additional Commitments

Additional Approvals Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Other approvals include: A Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water

Resources Act;

- 8 -

- 9 -


EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

Ministry of Tourism and Culture sign off on archaeological assessments;

Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Class EA requirements for easement agreements with Ontario Realty Corporation;

Authorizations and permits from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

Authorizations from Ontario Heritage Trust for land purchases/exchanges; or temporary land requirements during construction;

Authorization from utility authorities for relocations and temporary power needs;

Permits and approvals from the City of Vaughan; Potential federal permits such as authorizations

under the Fisheries Act; Navigable Water Protection Act, and the Canadian Transportation Act; and,

Potential triggers under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Appendix B

Submissions Received During Initial Comment Period

Appendix B Tables

- 1 -

Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Proposal: Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) Proponent: The Region of York

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status

Provincial Agencies Ministry of the Environment (MOE)-Central Region

Air Quality A minor typographical error was found on the 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) graphs under Attachment B of Appendix 4C-8, which refers to the 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) of NO2. The graph should refer to the 1-hour AAQC.

The EA has been amended to change (Appendix 4C-8 revised figures).

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA addresses.

The supporting information (Comment no. 41) provided on June 15, 2011 included sample input and output dispersion modelling files for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Based on a cursory review of the modelling files, the data provided is acceptable for this specific project. Please note for future projects, all input and output files for all parameters modelled should be attached to the Air Quality Report. Since the submission of the final Air Quality Report, the MOE’s new AAQCs for Benzene and 1, 3 Butadiene are effective immediately. For future projects, please ensure that these AAQCs are not listed as proposed AAQCs. For further details, please refer to the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry posting on July 2011, which can be accessed using the following registry number:

Comments noted.

The ministry is satisfied.

- 2 -


o 1, 3-Butadiene (EBR Registry Number: 010-6214) o Benzene (EBR Registry Number: 010-7186) For the tailpipe emissions of particulate matter (Section 4.4), the United States Environmental Protection Act AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1 has been updated and finalized in January 2011. These emission factors should be used for future projects. The emission factors reported in the June 2010 version are more conservative than January 2011 version and thus no further actions are required at this time.

Comment noted.

The ministry is Satisfied.

The impacts from existing conditions at nearby sensitive receptors were not compared with future build scenario as recommended in Comment no. 35. Instead, additional text in Section 4.2 of the Air Quality Report was added to note that it was assumed that the increase in emissions from heavy duty vehicle traffic for the future build scenario will not be significantly greater than existing conditions. At a minimum these assumptions should be supported with emissions data.

The rationale behind this assumption (i.e., that the increase in emissions from heavy duty vehicle traffic for the future build scenario will not be significantly greater than existing conditions) is that heavy duty vehicle traffic is not expected to increase significantly in the future within the study area. As a result, the emissions data that were developed based on actual traffic counts taken in 2010 are assumed to be valid. Emissions data based on traffic counts will be provided.


The Region of York should address the potential impacts of all the contaminants of concern for the preferred alternative (Comment no. 34). For example, the fact that there are no existing ambient PM10 measurements in Ontario is not a valid explanation for not assessing PM10 impacts. There is

Prior to detailed design, the Region of York will assess impacts of up to 4 additional contaminants of concern. The Region of York will work with the MOE to identify the most appropriate contaminants to assess, and will submit the assessment to the MOE for review (amended Table 6-2).


- 3 -


literature from other jurisdictions that includes the typical ratios of PM10 to PM2.5 in ambient measurements which have been used in support of EA air quality studies.

Stormwater Management (SWM) The SWM strategy for the project is outlined in Section 5.3.1.2 - Stormwater Management of the final EA report and changes little from the draft EA report. However, unlike the draft report that described stormwater treatment criteria as Enhanced Level 1 Treatment, the final EA instead describes a variety of options that are to be considered during detail design based on ‘local opportunity and constraints’.

The proposed SWM facilities options for the project, to be confirmed during detail design include: treatment with oil and grit separators (OGS); enhanced vegetated swales; vegetated grassed swales; treatment with existing ponds for adjacent development; future ponds for adjacent development; or existing quantity control SWM ponds with OGS. The need for additional sewer capacity to convey discharge to some of the treatment options is also proposed to be determined at the detail design phase. Locations of each proposed SWM type are outlined in Figure 5-5 of the report. It is also noted that while enhanced grassed swales are proposed, the final report states this may require additional land acquisition (Section 5.3.1.2). However, the Response to Comments Table previously submitted by the proponent states additional land acquisition is not

The Region of York commits in Section 5.3.1.2 of the EA to providing Enhanced Level 1 Treatment for stormwater as part of the improvements. The details of the treatment facilities will be determined during detailed design. Enhanced water quality protection will be provided by OGS in isolation and in combination with the other SWM measures listed in the report where feasible. As indicated in the final EA report, the SWM strategy, including consideration of enhanced vegetated swales, will be re-visited during detailed design. Although it is the Region of York’s preference to minimize impacts to adjacent land owners (especially in sensitive areas), the need for additional property acquisition to accommodate any proposed SWM measures will be investigated. It is determined that enhanced vegetated swales and other measures provide a significant benefit above OGS. It should be noted that additional land within environmentally sensitive areas will likely be required from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and from Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) to accommodate enhanced vegetated swales along Major Mackenzie Drive between Islington Avenue and Pine Valley Drive, and similarly from TRCA along Rutherford Road between Islington Avenue and Pine Valley Drive. Additional land may be required where the enhanced vegetated swales can be accommodated on Highway 27 north of Major

A proposed condition of approval is recommended to required that the SWM strategy be prepared in consultation with the ministry and be reviewed by the ministry during the detailed design.

- 4 -


intended.

The SWM strategy should be revisited to determine how stormwater water quality treatment capable of meeting Enhanced Level 1 Protection and quantity/flow control can be accomplished for all sub-catchments with more consideration for the protection of the natural receivers, particularly in areas where greater ecological sensitivity is identified. As proposed, the increased stormwater runoff created by the road expansions would be expected to have a large scale negative impact on surface waters in the study area. Many waterbodies identified as high quality fish habitat (including species at risk such as Red Side Dace) are to receive stormwater runoff with little water quality treatment or stormwater quantity controls.

Mackenzie Drive. A commitment has been added to Table 6-2 of the EA to consult with MOE and TRCA while developing the SWM strategy during detailed design.

In the Response to Comments Table, it was noted that the information requested during our review of the draft EA would be provided in the final EA report. In the final report, it is stated that additional information would be collected on the SWM ponds during detail design (Section 5.3.1.2).

The current level of function and the ability to use existing SWM ponds should be confirmed in the final EA report. If these existing SWM ponds cannot be used, then alternative SWM treatment facilities that meet ‘Enhanced Water Quality Protection’ level 1 treatment should be proposed.

Information that should be provided in support of utilizing the existing SWM ponds includes the level of treatment the SWM ponds were originally

Neither the City of Vaughan nor the TRCA could provide further details on the existing SWM ponds that are intended to accept runoff from the proposed widened roadways. The report provides alternative measures that can be adopted in the event that the existing ponds do not have sufficient permanent and/or active storage volumes to treat the quality and quantity of storm runoff from the proposed widened roadways. These include underground storage in the right-of-way to mitigate impacts on peak flow rates, and OGS to mitigate impacts on water quality.


- 5 -


designed to achieve; an analysis of the current level of treatment being provided by each SWM pond; a determination of the "excess" capacity to handle additional flows from the expanded roadways and provide enhanced level of water quality treatment.

For SWM ponds not currently meeting Enhanced Level 1 Treatment, an assessment on the ability to retrofit each pond to meet Enhanced Level 1 Treatment levels from a technical perspective, with consideration of other issues that may influence the feasibility of using the existing ponds for this project such as ownership and access, as well as information that the SWM ponds are not already allocated to service other future development.

Ideally, all future SWM facilities should be constructed concurrently with the road expansion construction. If this is not possible, treatment options capable of treating to Enhanced Level 1 Protection should be provided until permanent SWM facilities can be built. The use of existing drainage for the expanded roadway for an indeterminate amount of time, even with additional partial treatment, is likely to result in the deterioration of existing conditions in the natural receivers. In addition, administrative issues such as ownership and access, to confirm the utilization of the SWM ponds for this project should be addressed.

The intent is that the SWM facilities will be constructed as part of the road improvements. Section 5.3.1.2 of the EA report has been amended to state that, where roadway runoff is to be treated by SWM ponds for future adjacent development, interim SWM facilities such as OGS will treat roadway runoff in the event that road construction occurs in advance of adjacent development.

The ministry is satisfied amended EA addresses.

Drainage areas to each outlet should be delineated and increased surface water runoff quantified so to assess impact to each receiving watercourse, and to better determine the need for water quantity control

The comparison between the increase in impervious area and the total drainage area to a crossing location can indicate whether quantity control will be required. In all cases the percent of increased pavement

The ministry is satisfied amended EA addreses.

- 6 -


structures. The final EA does provide an estimate for the proportion of increased imperviousness resulting from the project in the total drainage area of each catchment, however this does not allow for an assessment of impacts to / from the increased runoff to the natural receiver or for an evaluation of the need for quantity controls to mitigate negative impacts. It is recommended that the contributing drainage areas of each SWM facility (ponds, swales, sewers, OGS) and their outlet locations to the natural receivers be approximately marked on a map.

compared to the total drainage area to the crossing location is less than 3.0%. This indicates that peak flows in the watercourse will not be affected and that quantity control will not be required. To confirm this, however, we are committing to undertake detailed hydrology analyses at the detailed design stage (Table 6-2). If it is found at that time that quantity control is required in some locations, underground storage could then be designed and implemented. Appendix 5F of the amended EA report includes drawings that show the additional impervious area as compared to the total drainage area at crossing locations.

Section 3.4.1, Aquatic Environment of the EA should include a statement on whether provincially significant wetlands are present in the study area.

There are no provincially significant wetlands in the study area, as documented in Section 2.3.1 of Appendix 3C-1 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Existing Conditions).


It is likely that issues arising from the stormwater discharge may include increased water temperature. This should be evaluated and discussed in the EA report.

An assessment and evaluation of effects from stormwater discharge on water quality, specifically temperature, have been added to Section 5.6, Table 5-8 of the EA report. EA amended to include installation of thermal mitigation such as sub-surface granular trenches under outfall channels.


The importance of maintaining base flows in surface water features in the study area cannot be under emphasized. The high degree of uncertainty in the impact assessment process has the potential to substantially underestimate the reduction in groundwater influence to these sensitive systems. Every effort should be made to update the impact assessments as additional information comes

Refer to Table 6-1 for monitoring of surface water during construction.


- 7 -


available; monitor for negative impacts; and have a comprehensive plan to implement additional mitigation measures as needed in a timely manner.

The retention of riparian vegetation within the right-of-way is one of the most effective means of controlling sediment, erosion and stream-bank destabilization. Therefore, re-vegetation of the riparian areas impacted after the construction is highly recommended. Temporary erosion control facilities, as well as the erosion/sedimentation control plan should be prepared well before construction starts.

As documented in Table 6-2 (EA Commitments and Compliance Monitoring), the Region of York will develop a vegetation restoration / recovery plan in discussion with TRCA and other relevant agencies. An erosion/sedimentation control plan will be prepared prior to construction, and temporary erosion control facilities will be installed before construction begins.


Ministry of the Environment (MOE)-Air and Noise Unit

Noise and vibration comments have been addressed. Comment noted. The ministry is satisfied.

Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)

Table 5-8 indicates that a number of registered archaeological sites may be “disturbed” as a result of the proposed undertaking, and indicates a commitment to undertake Stage 3 and 4 archaeological assessments as necessary. The identified sites include at least one (pioneer) cemetery and a known ossuary potential zone. MTC has reviewed and accepted one Stage 2 archaeological assessment (MTC letter dated September 29, 2011). Please be aware that all archaeological assessments reports must be reviewed by MTC staff and the recommendations accepted.

We acknowledge that all archaeological assessment reports must be reviewed by MTC staff and recommendations accepted, as documented in Table 6-2. Any additional archaeological assessments (i.e., Stage 3 and 4) will be completed prior to the completion of detailed design. Revised commitments and mitigation measures have been provided with respect to cemeteries in the amended EA (Chapter 5, Section 5.6.2.2, Table 5-8, Table 6-1, and Table 6-2). Includes mitigation and contacting Registrar of Cemeteries regarding any loss or disturbance to cemetery including applying for a closure process.

The ministry is satisfied that amended EA addresses.

- 8 -


Due to the nature and extent of the proposed undertaking, MTC recommends that all necessary archaeological assessments be completed as early as possible, and prior to completion of detail design, so that appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures can be established. In addition, two cemeteries and an ossuary potential zone have been identified as being impacted by the proposed undertaking. The process for identifying / notifying representatives of the deceased is defined under the policies and programs of the Cemeteries Act and the “best practices” guidelines for dealing with the discovery of human remains. While the report includes the measures that will be taken upon the discovering human remains during construction, MTC recommends that Michael D’Mello, Registrar of Cemeteries, be contacted to provide advice on what should be stated in the EA report concerning this matter, and what steps should be taken in the planning stages of the proposed project.

In regard to built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes, the EA includes the following two reports which address built heritage: Appendix 3C-3B Built Heritage prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) provides existing conditions for a preliminary overview of the cultural heritage concerns of the study area; and Appendix 4C-5 Built Heritage Field Investigations prepared by ASI provides a more focused identification based on the selection of the preferred alternative. It is not clear

Report 3C-3b – Built Heritage presents the existing conditions which are based on secondary source information. This report was originally prepared in May 2008 and revised in July 2008. With respect to the field investigations that are documented in Appendix 4C-5, field work was conducted in June 2009 and the corresponding report was prepared in November 2009.


- 9 -


when the field investigations were carried out or when the reports were prepared.

Built Heritage Field Investigations (Appendix 4C-5) provides a list of identified cultural heritage resources that will be impacted as well as an indication of the potential impact. We note that the inventory provided by ASI varies somewhat from the cultural heritage resources and potential impacts identified in the EA report.

Appendix 4C-5 is based on alternative methods and would have identified preliminary assessment of potential effects whereas Chapter 5 of the final EA report only deals with the preferred undertaking.


In addition, Section 6-Recommendations and Further Work, of ASI’s Built Heritage Field Investigation Report (Appendix 4C-5) indicates that the collection of data was intended for developing general mitigation measures for potentially impacted resources. The report recommends that, the developments of detailed mitigation measures, particularly for resources not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, requires detailed archival research and site analysis. Detailed research and site analysis enables identification of site specific heritage attributes that should be conserved. It is not possible to identify such elements from public road rights-of-way and in the absence of archival research. In instances where detailed mitigation measures are required, it is recommended that permission to enter impacted properties be secured and cultural heritage evaluations and heritage impact assessment (HIA) studies be completed. MTC recommends that the recommended cultural heritage evaluations and HIA studies be completed in

The commitment to undertake detailed research and site analysis of affected built heritage resources during the detailed design phase (i.e., as an input to detailed design) is included in Table 6-2. The commitment in Table 6-2 (#29) has been revised to indicate that copy of the HIA will be provided to MTC for review and comment during the detailed design.


- 10 -


order to properly evaluate the resources to be impacted and to provide detailed recommendations on how to avoid, limit, or mitigate impacts to these resources. MTC further recommends that these assessments be completed prior to detail design, and that MTC be provided with a copy of the HIA for review and comment.

Chapter 6 Monitoring and Commitments for the Undertaking While the monitoring activities during construction may be appropriate, further detailed site analysis, evaluations and impact studies should be undertaken to properly assess the potential impacts and provide detailed conservation or mitigation measures prior to detail design. Please refer to comments and recommendations provided above.

See response above.


MTC recommends that its name and acronym in section 8.2.3 be updated. A similar revision should be made in the corresponding section of the Executive Summary (i.e. Table E-8).

The acronym has been corrected

The ministry is satisfied amended EA clarifies.

Section 8.2.3 should not be limited to the MTC’s concurrence with a Stage 2 archaeological assessment. We note that elsewhere in the EA report (Table 5.8) a commitment to undertaking Stage 3 and Stage 4 archaeological assessments. MTC recommends that this paragraph be reworded to reflect that all archaeological assessment reports

Section 8.2.3 of the EA was revised to clarify that all archaeological assessments will be submitted to MTC. Ontario Heritage Trust, the property owner, has advised us that it is not prepared to undertake additional archaeological assessments at this time. However, these assessments will be completed during the detailed design phase (i.e., as an input to detailed design), so that appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures can


- 11 -


need to be reviewed and the recommendations of the reports be accepted by MTC staff. We further recommend that archaeological assessments be carried out early in the pre-construction phase, and prior to detail design, so that appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures can be undertaken.

be undertaken.

From a tourism perspective the MTC has no comments.

Comment noted. Comment noted.

Ministry of Infrastructure-Ontario Growth Secretariat

GTA West Corridor EA The report notes that the EA considered improvements associated with other related studies, including the Ministry of Transportation’s GTA West Corridor EA. It is not clear what elements of the GTA West Corridor have been considered in the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements EA, what impacts the findings of the GTA West Corridor EA might have on the preferred undertakings outlined in the EA, and conversely, how the proposed undertakings might impact on the findings of the GTA West Corridor EA. For example, has the EA considered whether the preferred road expansion undertakings are required in the event that a new highway is constructed in the GTA West Corridor?

Our traffic modelling considered the effects of implementing the GTA West Corridor EA on the five arterial road improvements within our study area. Refer to Appendix 2B – GTA West Corridor Sensitivity Analysis for the details.


Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Executive Summary (page E3) Reference to the project addressing approved growth over the next 25 years is forecasted growth as shown in Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan, not approved growth. Growth forecasts are reviewed every five years in consultation with municipalities and subject

The reference to “provincially approved” has been removed.

The ministry is satisfied that amended EA clarifies.

- 12 -


to revision. The growth forecasts were jointly developed between the province and municipalities. As written, the sentence implies that development applications have already been submitted and approved by the province over the next 25 years.

Section 2 -Purpose of/Rationale for the undertaking (page 2-1) The text in this section could be interpreted to mean that the Growth Plan delineates areas on the map, and specifically the study area, as “places to grow” which the Growth Plan does not. The Growth Plan identifies the approximate size and location of urban growth centres throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe as areas of greater intensification. The specific boundaries of the urban growth centres are to be delineated by the municipality. Schedule 4 of the Growth Plan identifies four urban growth centres in York Region- one of which is in Vaughan. The Vaughan Corporate Centre is just outside the boundary of the EA study area. Any reference to the Growth Plan identifying the study area as a “places to grow” should be deleted. The EA report references the Places to Grow Act, 2006. Please note the correct title is Places to Grow Act, 2005. The EA notes that the Places to Grow Act “mandates less greenfield development and greater intensification along transit-oriented development

The reference to “places to grow” has been deleted, and the title of the act will be corrected. In addition, the remainder of the sentence in Section 2.2.1 will be modified as follows: “The Places to Grow Act, 2005, mandates greater intensification along transit-oriented development corridors and nodes, which will result in increased densities of people living and working in urban areas, including the Western Vaughan study area.”

The ministry is satisfied that amended EA clarifies.

- 13 -


corridors and nodes, and compels Region of York to increase the density of people living and working in urban areas, including the western Vaughan study area.” Please note that while the Growth Plan does mandate 40% of all new residential development to occur in existing built up areas by 2015, development on designated greenfield areas continues to be permitted, but at greater densities. Secondly, the use of the work “compel” implies that the Growth Plan is forcing these densities and growth on the Region of York. The population and growth forecasts were developed in conjunction with all municipalities when the Growth Plan’s forecasts were released in 2006. The report accurately notes that beginning in 2015, 40% of all residential development is to occur within the existing built up area.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

MTO’s previous comments to the Region of York regarding the inconsistent cross-section widths on both Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive when compared to the 427 Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment, approved in November 2010, continue to apply to this report. The cross-sections differ in the lane and median widths with the approved 427 Transportation Corridor EA having a 0.8 m greater overall width. It is the ministry’s position that the approved preliminary design cross-section for both Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive shown

Page 7-28 of the EA includes the response to MTO’s comment on the draft EA report with respect to the cross-section widths on both Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive as follows: “As per MTO’s guidelines where a provincial 400 series highway interchange is intersecting with a municipal arterial road, the municipal arterial road will be designed to the MTO’s cross-sectional standards. As a result, both Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road will be designed to the MTO’s standards through the Highway 427 interchange areas.”


- 14 -


in the attached Exhibit 6-5 from the approved 427 Corridor EA must be constructed within the Controlled Access Highway (CAH) limits of the Highway 427 Extension. Outside of the ministry’s CAH limits, the Region of York may taper back to their reduced 6-lane cross-section on both of these corridors. Written confirmation is requested from Region of York that the MTO cross-section of Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive will be constructed as per the approved Highway 427 EA.

The relevant design plates in Appendix 5D-2 have been updated with the approved preliminary design cross-section for both Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive.

Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs

No concerns. Comment noted. The ministry is satisfied.

Others

No comments were provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Infrastructure Ontario (formerly Ontario Realty Corporation); GO Transit; the School Boards; and the Ontario Provincial Police.

N/A N/A

Federal Agencies Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Requested that the EA documents be submitted to TRCA for review. They indicated that they were not involved at this stage of the process.

Comment noted

Comment noted

Others No comments provided by Transport Canada; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; and, Environment Canada.

N/A N/A

Local Agencies

- 15 -


Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

TRCA staff note that throughout the EA, York Region and AECOM were committed to ensuring that the interest of all parties involved were addressed and provided extensive consultation. Staff has completed its review of the EA and further to details provided in Table 7-5 which addresses staff’s comments on the pre-submission consultation as such staff has no objection in principle to the preferred alternative. Please ensure that TRCA correspondence dated July 4, 2011 is attached to the EA or appended to any future circulations of the document.

Comment noted. Appendix 7J-1 updated to include July 4 letter.

No objection comment noted. The ministry is satisfied amended EA addresses.

Region of Peel

The Region of Peel is highly supportive of the EA study and the recommended alternative which is line with the Region of Peel’s initiatives. The Region of Peel would like to stress again the importance of network connectivity issues and safety concerns related to the EA. We would like to see consistency in lane widths, medians etc.

Comment noted. Comment in support noted.

As mentioned in our comments from February 17, 2011, general purpose lanes in the Region of Peel are typically 3.75 metres wide. The Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads suggest 3.7 metres for major urban and rural roads. This lane width is suggested to accommodate heavy truck traffic only for road segments located within commercial/industrial zones. The proposed design criteria specifically lane widths and on-road bike lanes are in conflict with the Region’s criteria. There is need to understand the

The lane widths proposed as part of the preliminary design are based on the Region of York’s Council-approved six-lane cross section. The Region of York’s policy is to implement this cross section for any roads that are being widened from 4 to 6 lanes. Nonetheless, we recognize the need to coordinate the design of Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road as they approach the intersection with Highway 50 and the boundary with the Region of Peel, especially in the vicinity of commercial/industrial uses. Thus, we will


- 16 -


reasoning behind the proposed narrow lane widths on-road bike lanes on roads where truck traffic is expected to be very high. The intersections of Highway 50 and Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 50 and Rutherford Road currently have high volumes of truck traffic. This is expected to increase as the future land uses proposed for these areas are focused on goods movement. In addition, the CP Vaughan Intermodal Yard, which is located in close proximity to the study area, on average handles over 2,000 trucks per weekday. Due to its location, almost all of the trucks serving the intermodal facility travel on Regional Road 50 to access Highway 427, leading to high truck volume on Regional Road 50. Truck activity will also increase following the construction of the Highway 427 extension and to support the high volume of commercial/industrial facilities in the study area.

revise the existing commitment in Table 6-2 to coordinate the design of Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road to the west of Highway 427 with the Region of Peel during detailed design.

Goods movement and manufacturing are key to Ontario’s economic vitality and the Region of Peel is a significant freight hub for the Greater Toronto Area, Southern Ontario and the rest of Canada. The Region of Peel is in favour of promoting transportation sustainability even from a goods movement perspective. One of the core priorities of the Peel Goods Movement Task Force for goods movement is to encourage greater efficiencies within the goods movement industry for carriers to deliver more full loads, reduce empty kilometers travelled and, ultimately, reduce greenhouse gases while maintaining the client-required level of service. Our goal is to favour truck activity on regional roads with


- 17 -


commercial and industrial land use types as opposed to residential areas in order to support economic growth in Peel.

The Region of Peel supports the provision of sidewalks and multi use pathways for the purpose of active transportation. Safety concerns exist in the EA study area from an active transportation perspective. Typically on-road bike lanes are not recommended on roads where 1) there are heavy auto truck volumes, 2) the posted speed limit exceeds 50 km/hr, and 3) there is no linkage to key destinations (e.g. malls/parks/transit terminals). Given that the existing Rutherford Road does not meet all of the above, plus the high gradient (uphill slopes) near the CP Rail track and Highway 27, on-road bike lanes clearly is not the best alternative to encourage active transportation. However, active transportation should be encouraged in the boulevards with multi-purpose trails / off-road bike path.

As mentioned above, the preliminary design is based on the Region of York’s Council-approved six-lane cross section. The Region of York is currently investigating various segregated bike lane opportunities. As these evolve, they will be considered as part of detailed design.


The future extension of Highway 427 to Major Mackenzie Drive makes this area ideal for the continuation of MTO’s Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) program. Accordingly, design elements at intersections along Highway 50 should accommodate LCV movements.

Comment noted. Refer to previous response regarding coordinating the detailed design of the intersections at Major Mackenzie Drive / Rutherford Road and Highway 50 with the Region of Peel.


Further information is requested on the traffic analysis completed for the intersections with Highway 50 to ensure there is consistency in intersection design and lane configuration with the

As noted in the response to previous comments, we agree that the intersection design and lane configuration at Highway 50 need to be coordinated. Please see previous response regarding coordinating


- 18 -


design elements of the EAs currently being undertaken by the Region of Peel. Specifically, we have concerns with the following: Major Mackenzie and Highway 50 (currently

under an EA) Rutherford Road and Highway 50 (currently

under detailed design)

the detailed design of the intersections at Major Mackenzie Drive / Rutherford Road and Highway 50 with the Region of Peel.

The EA should identify property requirements to meet the needs for the ultimate intersection design along Highway 50 in order to accommodate existing and proposed land uses which are expected to generate a high volume of truck traffic.

The EA does identify property requirements at the intersections at Rutherford Road and Highway 50 and Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 50. Highway 50 was removed from the EA study area upon the Region of Peel’s request. Therefore any property requirements within the Region of Peel at Highway 50 should be addressed through the Region of Peel’s EA and design process. The Region of York will work cooperatively with the Region of Peel to accommodate the needs of both regions in finalizing the intersection design and any associated property requirements.


The EA identifies a future capacity deficiency along major roads such as Teston Road and Langstaff Road. However, the document does not speak to any capital improvements to these roads. Clarification is requested to understand potential implications to the Region of Peel’s road network.

Langstaff Road to the east of Highway 50 is currently being constructed to 4 lanes. Although the EA recognizes some capacity deficiencies on Teston Road, these were considered in the context of the effects on the environment, and thus improvements were not recommended. In addition, both Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road were already identified as providing sufficient capacity in the east-west corridor.


- 19 -


City of Brampton

Many of our previous comments have been addressed and the report generally satisfies the requirements of the EA process. There are a few concerns that remain and should be addressed in the EA and the implementation of the preferred undertaking. Since many of these concerns are focused on assumptions not clarified in the report, none of them are seen as compromising the EA process or delaying its conclusion


GTA West Corridor EA – currently being studied by the MTO and identified in Peel Regional Official Plan Amendment 24 – will likely traverse the study area. While it is said in Chapters 1 and 2 that this corridor EA has been considered, it does not appear on any schedules or in any other chapters of the main report (although a sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix 2).

As identified in the comment, the GTA West Corridor EA is discussed in Appendix 2B. It was not seen to be relevant to delineate the location of the corridor on any of the figures.


The monitoring section of the EA discusses details mostly of the direct environmental impacts of construction activities. More explicit discussion of transportation performance measures, although not required for the EA process, would be helpful for coordinated planning with neighbouring municipalities.


The Peel Highway 427 Extension Area Transportation Master Plan, completed jointly with the Region of York in 2009 and emphasizing area connectivity to the Highway 427 extension, and in particular the Major Mackenzie Drive to Mayfield Rd connection via a new arterial road (‘Alternative A2’ in the aforementioned Transportation Master

The Peel Highway 427 Extension Area Transportation Master Plan is mentioned in Section 1.4 of the EA. We did not see a need to mention the plan in Chapter 3.


- 20 -


Plan) should be mentioned in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 (while the demand analysis has taken the road into account, there is no explicit mention in the main report).

Pages 2-3, 2-5 and 2-6: This area’s (Secondary Plan 47) specific land use plans are still under development, and population and employment totals were last updated in 2009. Updated totals may be available for future work on the western Vaughan transportation improvements.


For some figures (such as Figure 3-8), it may be more useful to show lane configurations (number of lanes) rather than ‘base conditions’ and ‘improvements’ on these maps. As it is, certain sections may be interpreted as gaps in the six-lane road network.


Appendix 2: The alternatives in Chapter 3 of the report are not reflected in Table 14 – Future Scenario Listing of Appendix 2 (Modelling Assumptions). For example, Bolton GO Transit (should be Bolton GO Rail Transit) is not shown as part of the 2031 base case. The “Minimal Improvement” Road Network assumptions in Table 15 also do not match any alternative in Chapter 3.

Table 14 in the appendix refers to network scenarios constructed very early in the study. They are not intended to relate to the 9 scenarios described in Chapter 3 and assessed in detail. The network components of the 9 scenarios are listed in the large table that comprises Appendix 3A. The first sentence of the second paragraph on Page 3-16 makes it clear that traffic modelling was undertaken to support the assessment of these 9 alternatives. Separate model runs were made for all alternatives except 2 (Transportation Demand Management) and 3 (Transportation System Management) where adjustments were made by hand to Alternative 1 outputs.


Transit: There should be a discussion in the report of transit mode share that reflects the differences

While transit improvements have been fully reflected in all of the modelling work, this EA has focussed on the


- 21 -


between areas close to and more distant from the Toronto Transit Commission subway extension and GO Transit rail services. While the report acknowledges that existing and planned transit improvements were taken into account to determine mode share in multiple scenarios, some clarification of the magnitude and impact of these mode share assumptions would be appreciated (since the quality and level of service varies significantly between local transit, GO Transit rail service, and regional rapid transit service). Tables in Appendix 2 show current transit mode share by area, but the report is lacking a similar breakdown for future conditions.

needs of the Region of York’s arterial road system. Tables 8 and 9 in Appendix 2 show 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey modal split results. Tables 16 and 17 provide a good indication of the 2031 projected modal split for the study area as a whole, the entire City of Vaughan and the entire Region of York, with comparisons to the 2006 Base. Table 18 gives a more detailed breakdown within the study area, at various east-west and north-south screenlines for 2006, 2021 and 2031. The latter table provides valuable insights as to how the future transit modal split would change from existing levels and vary throughout the study area.

Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table Proposal: Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) Proponent: The Region of York

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Rimwood Estates Homeowners Association

Requested that their 39 lot subdivision located on the north east corner of Teston Road and Weston Road be included in the ground water monitoring program as this subdivision is also serviced by groundwater wells.

In general, dewatering of water wells occurs in situations where excavation to at least several metres in depth is required, such as with the construction of footings for bridges and other structures. Widening existing roads, such as Weston Road, does not require excavation to that depth. In addition, since the 39 lots in the subdivision located at the north east corner of Teston Road and Weston Road are approximately 2.25 kilometres away from the nearest proposed road improvements (i.e., at Weston Road and Major Mackenzie Drive), the wells in that subdivision are a sufficient distance from construction activity so as to not require monitoring.


U-Pak Disposals Limited

Background Comments At our initiative, we contacted the Region of York to constructively discuss the proposed undertaking and in this regard met with the Region of York and its consultants (AECOM) on two occasions (July 10, 2009 and January 8, 2010). At the initial meeting (July 10th, 2009) only one alignment (similar to Alternative MM-2B) was being considered. At the meeting we identified other potential alternatives which were subsequently denoted as

Refer to response provided below. Comment acknowledged.

- 1 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Alternatives MM-2A, MM-2C and MM-2D. At the request of the Region of York, we provided permission to the Region of York’s consultants to access our property and to carry out testing which included the installation of a groundwater monitoring well. Our consultant (Candevcon Limited) provided the Region of York with preliminary development (land use) plans for the tableland part of our property as well as a detailed assessment of the relative impacts of Alternative MM-2A and MM-2B in order to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of the alternatives. All of the alternatives (MM-2A and MM-2D) have a major impact on our property (in varying degrees) and dissect it into two parcels as illustrated in Figure 1 attached to the letter. Suffice to say that no other property on Major Mackenzie Drive is impacted to the same degree as our property. Notwithstanding the above, the Region did not provide us with any specific information during the EA process on the evaluation of the alternatives being considered and we were only advised that Alternative MM-2B was the preferred alternative.

Comments on the EA Documents – Evaluation of Alternatives It is evident to us that the evaluation of alternatives is skewed and does not fairly or accurately represent the facts. In this regard it is also evident that the real impact on our property was not addressed. To illustrate the above, the following factors are noted: With reference to Section 7.3.7 - Meetings with Private

We acknowledge that Candevcon Limited and U-PAK provided input into the alternatives that were considered in Alternative MM-2 based on our initial meeting from July 10, 2009. The purpose of that meeting was to present preliminary ideas for alignments and to understand how those alignments would affect existing and future uses for U-PAK’s property. As the letter indicates, we conducted an assessment of the alternatives that were identified


- 2 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Property Owners of the EA document, we note that the EA does not accurately represent the facts as outlined below: “York Region had an initial meeting to present the

proposed alternative alignments associated with segment MM-2... .”

As noted earlier Alternative Alignments MM-2A,

MM-2C and MM-2D were in fact proposed by Candevcon.

“...York Region received correspondence from U-Pak

that included a concept plan for a proposed subdivision at this location the preferred alternative alignment...”

As previously noted above, the submission by

Candevcon Limited (letter of September 13, 2010 with Plans P1 and P2; showed that Alternative MM-2B resulted in the following additional impacts to our property in comparison to Alternative MM-2A:

Increase in property required for Major Mackenzie

Drive ROW of 2.33 ha;

Loss in future development frontage of 1,130 metres;

“Sterilizing” of additional land area of 0.27 ha due

to lack of access etc. resulting from the road alignment.

We question the accuracy and validity of data used in the evaluation of alternatives MM-2A to MM-2D since it is evident that vertical road profiles and grading limits were

at that initial meeting with U-PAK. The alternative methods were developed to a conceptual design level of detail, which did not include vertical road profiles and specific grading limits. Instead, we assumed a wider right-of-way than was ultimately used as part of the preliminary design to accommodate for additional effects, including property. The evaluation of alternative methods (i.e, Alternatives MM-2A to MM-2D inclusive) considered all elements of the environment, as required under the Environmental Assessment Act. Specifically, we considered how the alternatives would affect the natural environment (including terrestrial and aquatic habitat), the social environment (including property impacts and broader land use impacts), and the built environment (including archaeological and built heritage features). We recognize that the Alternative MM-2B had greater impacts to U-PAK’s property in comparison to Alternative MM-2A. Our assessment concluded that Alternative MM-2A was most preferred with regards to impacts on the social environment, as it required the least amount of property acquisition, least amount of open space land use, and least amount of Class 1 to Class 3 agricultural soils. This assessment is consistent with Candevcon’s conclusions based on their detailed site assessment. However, these impacts were considered in the context of all the impacts to the environment, as

- 3 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status only prepared for the preferred alternative (MM-2B). The acquisition of 4.55 ha of property is listed for Alternative MM-2A and 4.59 ha for Alternative MM-2B, notwithstanding that the existing right of way being utilized for Alternative MM-2A is 1.48 ha compared to 0.19ha for Alternative MM-2B. It is also not clear whether these areas include areas affected by cut/fill slopes. We question the objectivity and appropriateness of the comparative evaluation as provided in Table 4D-6. A summary of the preferences and the rationale for same as outlined in Table 4D-6 of the EA is provided in the attached Appendix “A”. At our request, Candevcon Limited completed a detailed site assessment of the alternatives and concluded based on factual data and specific site information pertaining to the alternatives that Alternative MM-2A is the preferred alternative.

defined above. These included: Affecting the greatest amount of wildlife

habitat and wetland habitat area of the four alternatives;

Affecting the highest number of water

wells; and Having the greatest potential to cause forest

fragmentation. In addition, from a safety perspective, the horizontal design curves associated with Alternative MM-2A were considered to be less than optimal compared to the other alternatives. As a result, Alternative MM-2B was identified as the preferred alternative, as documented in Table 4-2 of Chapter 4 and in Table 4D-6 of Appendix 4D.

Proposed Grade Separation of CPR We note that the EA document does not evaluate alternatives for the grade separation. We submit that considering the cost, impacts and engineering and community design considerations that an evaluation of an underpass is warranted. The proposed solution comprises an overpass where the road surface will be 12 metres above the adjacent future residential community with extensive embankments. Due to the reduced headroom required for roads (versus rail), as well as the existing elevated rail profile, the site conditions indicate that an underpass would likely provide a less costly solution with

We acknowledge that an underpass was not considered in detail as part of the EA. Typically the overpass is the preferred option unless there are significant reasons or impacts that render it infeasible. There are two main issues with constructing an underpass in this particular location. First, it requires a CP Rail track diversion to stage the construction of the structure. Due to the proximity of the track to the CP Rail intermodal yard, and the volume of trains on this subdivision, a diversion is likely to be


- 4 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status less land use impacts. Accordingly, we recommend that an evaluation also be completed for an underpass alternative.

discouraged by CP Rail authorities. In our experience, CN Railway and CP Rail always prefer an overpass because it does not impact their track and operations. The second issue is related to roadway drainage. Due to the grades in this location, a permanent pump station would be required to direct stormwater to the nearest outlet, which would necessitate additional property and is an ongoing maintenance issue. Further, the Robinson Creek tributary that is located immediately west of the rail crossing would have to be diverted to the west to accommodate the profile drop for the underpass, which would be of concern to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Comments on the EA Documents – Impact Mitigation In summary, it is blatantly clear that the severity of the impact that would be caused to our property by Alternative MM-2B has not registered with the study team. In simple terms the property would be bisected in such a manner that it would adversely impact the utilization of the property both in its current condition (residence and farm) and for future residential development. (In this regard we advise that we applied to the City of Vaughan in 2006 for planning approval to develop the property for residential uses). The mitigation measures noted in the EA are vague and provide no quantitative information. The two most significant issues affecting our property are: a) Compensation for Land Acquisition

The standard property acquisition process is as follows: Each affected owner is contacted by a staff appraiser/negotiator early in the detailed design phase, and the owner is assured that this staff person will be the single point of contact during the entire acquisition process. Construction usually occurs 1 to 2 years after detailed design is initiated, so there is time to investigate and address the owners' concerns, and the Region always prefers an amicable transaction. The Region of York hires certified and accredited appraisers to perform appraisals on each affected property, and a copy of the report will be made available to the owner during the regular


- 5 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Although our consultant requested the Region of York to provide information on property acquisition, the Region of York’s response was vague.... “York Region will follow the standard property acquisition process in cases where private property is required for the improvements identified as part of the preferred undertaking” (Reference – Region of York letter dated July 6, 2010) Essentially, we would like to know: How the property value is evaluated?

Will compensation be provided for property

affected by grading and access restrictions?

meetings held between the owner and the staff appraiser/negotiator. The appraisal is based on “fair market value” for the property, or the portion of the property that is required by the Region of York for the improvements. "Market value" is a well defined concept in the appraisal profession, and the legal profession, and mostly involves looking for recent sales of homes or properties that are as similar as possible to the owner's home or property. “Market value" is defined as "the most probable sale price of a property, if exposed on the open market for a reasonable length of time, sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer, with both parties fully knowledgeable as to the uses to which the property can be put, and neither party acting under duress". On the first call, the owner will be invited to tell the staff appraiser/negotiator about comparable sales they are aware of, or realtors that they rely on, or prior appraisals that they may have had done, in an effort to bring out as much market information as possible. Anything provided by the owner will be given to the appraiser hired by the Region. MPAC information is not usually relied upon, as it is not an individual appraisal of the property, but a "mass appraisal" using multiple-regression statistical techniques of large groups of properties.

c) Compensation for Adverse Impacts

As noted in Candevcon‟s letter of September 13, 2010,

We agree that there will likely be noise impacts to future residential development on your property. However, as noted in our letter to Mr.


- 6 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Alternative MM-2B would result in significant reduction/loss of revenue in the future development of our property. Loss of saleable frontage of 1,130 m which is valued at $13 million (2011 dollars). Furthermore, the noise impacts associated with an overpass over the CP Rail tracks would be very significant on future residential development and the most appropriate mitigation measures would comprise the installation of a noise barrier (wall) at the outer limit of the road boulevards. Accordingly, we request that as part of the road design, if an overpass is selected, that noise barriers be installed to provide noise mitigation in an effective manner for future residential developments on the adjacent lands.

Horgan of Candevcon from January 18, 2011, The Region of York’s noise policy is related to the mitigation of existing residential units at the time of the EA study. For any future residential development, it is the developer’s responsibility to address noise mitigation as part of the development approval process.

Local resident

I am a resident of a street, called Sanremo Court, which is situated off of Highway 7 between Langstaff and Martin Grove Road. As part of the improvements, Highway 27 will be expanded from 4 lanes to six lanes, between Steeles and Major Mackenzie. My concern relates to lands situated between my street (Sanremo Court) and Martin Grove Road. Currently, there exists a sidewalk that allows us to walk to the nearby park and school for our children located off of Martin Grove Road on Highway 27 which is unsafe at the best of times as there currently are no road barriers (rail etc.) protecting pedestrians who use this sidewalk from the traffic of Highway 27. Is there any intention as part of these improvements, or in future, to create a walkway of some sort (keeping in mind the conservation land located in this area) to allow for safe access to Martin Grove Road for our children without having to use the Highway 27 sidewalk or at minimum to install a barrier

With regards to pedestrian access along Highway 27 between Sanremo Court and Martin Grove Road, the EA proposes a 3.0 metre wide multi-use path on the east side of Highway 27 between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive which will be wider than the typical sidewalk width of 1.5 m. Therefore, this provides additional safety for pedestrians above and beyond our normal standard. It should be noted, that there is approximately 10 metre of boulevard space between the currently planned multi-use path and the property limit for Highway 27, therefore, an alternative option to the multi-use path could be considered at this location. However, this is a level of detail that is more suited to the detailed design phase of the study. The location of the pathway and potential need for any barriers will be assessed as part of the detailed design. Please note that Highway 27 is not proposed to be widened within the next 20 years.


- 7 -

- 8 -

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status for safer use of the sidewalk by the children on our street who wish to walk to their nearby park or school located on Martin Grove Rd? How will this issue be addressed?

MAKING A SUBMISSION?

A five-week public review period ending December 9, 2011, will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Fax: (416) 314-8452

Re: Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental

Assessment Attention: Solange Desautels, Special Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.